Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the comments of the member for Riverina and others in the House and in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. As this debate allows for a conscience vote of members in this House, I do not claim to speak for all the people in Kingsford Smith—some are opposed to this bill and some are in favour of it. In this instance, I only claim to speak for myself, and I say to the people in Kingsford Smith that I have thought long and hard about this issue and I hope they understand my reasons for coming to the decision to support the bill.

Primarily my reason is a simple one, and it has been stated by others. I do not believe that the bill before us is about abortion at all, although the debate surrounding the bill has understandably expanded into that domain. This bill concerns the appropriate way for a drug to be regulated and approved, and it is on that basis—on the substance of the bill itself—that I have come to the view that I should support it. I believe that the question of appropriate drug approvals and regulations is separate and distinct from broader discussions about the merits of the matter, which go to questions of belief and values—factors that are important for me but which are not the nub of this debate or this legislation.

For those many Australians who have strong concerns about abortion—and I share some of those concerns, albeit from my own perspective—I think the issue properly turns on whether or not the approval of a drug of this kind would automatically increase the number of abortions that take place in Australia and would expose women to additional health risks. On a thorough reading of the available evidence and on consideration of the points that have been brought to this debate by other members—and by senators to the debate in the Senate—I do not believe that this will be the case. As the member for Riverina properly said, what should concern members is that this debate is about an evidence based evaluation of whether or not there is a safe drug available for women who are considering this most serious of matters.

I listened carefully yesterday to a number of contributions honourable members made. I acknowledge the depth of feeling in the House. I thought the arguments and the views advanced by the member for Murray in support of the bill were well made. I note too that the bill has come to us as a bipartisan bill. It has come from women senators, and a majority of women in the Senate voted in favour of that bill. I note too that medical practitioners with medical expertise within the parliament are speaking in favour of the bill. It is true that some are speaking against it—and, in terms of the respective amendments that are before us, I believe they would only add more confusion and more layers to what properly ought to be a fairly straightforward decision: that is, what is the most appropriate body to provide the regulatory framework and the approvals framework for a drug of this kind. It clearly should be the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

I confine my remarks to that observation, recognising and appreciating that the level of concern in the community on these issues is strong but stating very clearly from my own perspective that this primarily and importantly should be a debate solely about the best method of approval of a drug of this kind. To that extent and even more, I support the bill.

See this speech in context